New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Recomendations

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

I am 5'11" 200 lbs and consider myself and fairly advanced skier. (I ski about anything, just not massive cliffs or ridiculously steep tress). I am from the northeast so I have a pair of the volkl ac 30s that get the job done there, I also have a pair for dynastar trouble makers for messing around in the park.

 

Every year I make a trip out west and I find the ac 30's struggling in the powder, I am being forced to learn way back in my stance to keep my tips up and have decided its time to put an end to this. I enjoy anything from tight trees, to big wide open bowls. I also like to do a little hiking(good exercise) Whether the fresh powder is that's were I like to go. I'm looking for a ski to provide float on the powder to handle big wide turn through a fresh powder bowl but to also have to maneuverability through the trees. To be able to handle some crud would be nice too =). As for groomers that's what my ac 30s are for.

So have I have been looking at the gotama's and the nomads and shamans from the icelandic series. I think I'm looking at going around 100-110 mm underfoot and about 180 in length.

 

Any and all advice on dimensions(both underfoot and length) and ski type will be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot guys and girls.

post #2 of 18

Welcome to EpicSki! 

 

One ski for both tight trees and wide open bowls may be difficult, but not impossible.  If you are on top of the snow, it should be easier to turn in the trees than if you are on narrow skis.  Something around 100 mm waist and 180 cm long would be a good starting point as you mention.

 

There are some tradeoffs with reverse camber, but if you are 100% committed to powder performance, that would be worth looking into.  I ski alot in the powder, but still have to ski groomers to get there.  Heard good things about the Nomad and Shaman, but haven't tried any of the skis you mentioned. 

 

My powder rides are Fischer Watea 94 and Head Mojo 90 - fairly conventional skis.  Good luck with your search.

 

 

post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 

How do you like the watea 94s I was looking into the watea 101s as another viable option.

post #4 of 18

The nomad is a fantastic ski, very versitile on both powder and groomers but is happier in soft snow. Keep in mind the dims are 146-111-136, not the published ones; so you still get a 19 m tr. The Shaman is a killer pow ski but once you ski a rockered tip/tail ski, I think you'll find they are just a better "mouse trap" so to speak. I am ordering a Nomad soft in 181 for this coming season.

 

why do these fit your bill?

 

Hike for turns: Lightweight- pair these with dukes and your rockin' on a lightweight setup

Open Bowls: nice wide 111 underfoot and torsionallly stiff makes it good fro rippin' up to most mortals speed limit

Tight spots: 19 m tr (give or take) make it nimble, not overly stiff- bombproof bases take abuse very well.

 

Not everyone has them!

 

post #5 of 18
Thread Starter 

bomb proof base thats is deffinatly a plus...my ac30 are pretty beat up after last year.. took a core shot my last day at whistler. I am really looking hard at a pair of 181 nomads for the coming season..(like the graphics too). Thanks for your guys advice.

 

Love to hear more opinions keep them coming!

post #6 of 18

At 200 lbs, you should be looking at skis that are 180cm minimum.  Add at least 5cm for a twin tip tail, 10cm for a rockered tip, 15cm for reverse camber.

 

The big questions you need to consider -- besides width -- are sidecut and camber.

 

Personally, I don't like a lot of sidecut in a soft snow ski. I think it's counter productive.  In order to get the waist big enough, you end up with huge tips that get kicked around in anything imperfect.  And you maximize the hammock effect.  I won't consider a soft snow ski with a turning radius under 25m.  But others disagree.

 

Camber has been discussed a lot.

post #7 of 18

TheDad, In the case of Icelantics, its a different design. The 181 is plenty of ski! I would agree you don't need much SC but the Nomad design provides great float, stability and agility. FWIW, a little sc in tighter trees and areas is a good thing.

post #8 of 18

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeSki View Post

How do you like the watea 94s I was looking into the watea 101s as another viable option.


I've only had them for a short time - two days on spring slush around SLC.  Hard to comment about tree skiing capability when all I did was hit wide open bowls like Alta's Devil's Castle and Snowbird's Mineral Basin.  Similar construction between the 94 and 101 doesn't necessarily mean they ski the same.  Do a search and you'll find WAY too much information - that feature is up on the top of the page near the blue line. 

 

After reading all the posts about powder skis, it'll be a wonder you can make a decision at all.  Finndog knows of what he speaks, FWIW.  Skis AND beer.....
 

post #9 of 18
Thread Starter 

Yea, there are just so many choices its hard to pick one that is going to fit my needs, especially because I am going to have limited chance to demo them in the conditions I want to ski them or demo them at all. My choice is mostly going to made off the research I do. I e-mailed the guys over at icelatic to ask a a little more about their skis.

 

Has anyone had the opportunity to get on a pair of 181 nomads? ( These are currently my front runner from what I've read here and other places)

post #10 of 18

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

TheDad, In the case of Icelantics, its a different design. The 181 is plenty of ski! I would agree you don't need much SC but the Nomad design provides great float, stability and agility. FWIW, a little sc in tighter trees and areas is a good thing.

 

I haven't tried the Nomad, only the Shaman.  I couldn't even stand the one run I took on them.

 

A little sidecut is fine.  20m is way too much for my tastes.  YMMV.

post #11 of 18

You need to look at Prophet 100s in 186 (they ski very short). One of the very top rated skis in the last few years. Extremely versatile and can do everything except boilerplate ice. Very stable yet lively and playful - a very fun easy effective ski. I won't waste more space extolling their virtues just do a search for reviews especially on Teton Gravity and http://www.skinet.com/skifinder.

post #12 of 18
Thread Starter 

ok so I have pretty much narrowed it down to the line prophet 100's or the icelantic nomads. Any other opinions on these two skis? thanks alot for all your help everyone.

post #13 of 18

either ski is fine, I think the 100 may be a little stiffer but its a great ski.

 

Dad, the Shaman skis quite a bit differently and requires a neutral stacked body position, Icelantics are not really good for old schoolers,(I am not saying you are)

post #14 of 18

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

Dad, the Shaman skis quite a bit differently and requires a neutral stacked body position, Icelantics are not really good for old schoolers,(I am not saying you are)


I may be.  I'm certainly not a newschooler.  But these were easily the worst skis I've skied in the shaped ski era, and I've skied some pretty new school skis, including most of the Moment line.

post #15 of 18

I think you're on the right track with the Gotama...it is a significant upgrade over your AC30s in terms of POW performance and, yet, is still extrememely versatile.  The 183 does quite well in trees and in wide open spaces.  You could go up to a ski with a 110ish waist and still be fine.  I agree that you don't want a ton of sidecut for your soft-snow ski ( I prefer no less than high 20s ) but you'll have to make a strategic decision if you want rocker or not.  That goes a long way to determining what skis should be on the short list.

post #16 of 18

loadnload, all good points and to clarify tht the nomad is actually 111 underfoot not the 105 published.

 

Dad, hey its what you lke, I love the shaman aud find it "stupid easy" to ski pow and choped up crap.

post #17 of 18

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by locknload View Post

I think you're on the right track with the Gotama...it is a significant upgrade over your AC30s in terms of POW performance and, yet, is still extrememely versatile.  The 183 does quite well in trees and in wide open spaces.  You could go up to a ski with a 110ish waist and still be fine.  I agree that you don't want a ton of sidecut for your soft-snow ski ( I prefer no less than high 20s ) but you'll have to make a strategic decision if you want rocker or not.  That goes a long way to determining what skis should be on the short list.


i agree with all the above statements. EXCEPT if you go with the gotama (which would probably be a safe bet), you better go 190 at your size. you'll be kicking yourself if you go 183.
 

post #18 of 18

Yeah...I agree.  The 190, for his size, is a much better choice.  I'm tall but light (6 foot 3, 185 lbs) and have the 183.  I actually wish I had chosen the 190 as this ski really does ski short which does make it quite maneuverable in tight spots.  I can't speak for the Shamans...people say great things about Icelandic brand..I have never skiied them.  I can't totally wrap my around about how short some of the skis are but I think they are now making many models in the low 180s (please correct me if I'm wrong guys).  People do rave about them...I've just never had a chance to ride them.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion